Page File - optimal location

  • Thread starter Thread starter eblaster
  • Start date Start date
E

eblaster

Where is the optimal location for a page file (Windows XP)?
I have two disk drives in my PC, each on a separate controller.
I always thought it was best to place the page file on a drive other than
the one used for the operating system and user files. However, I recently
read somewhere that MS recommends putting at least a small page file on the
boot drive.

Thoughts, comments?

Thanks,
Phil
 
eblaster said:
Where is the optimal location for a page file (Windows XP)?
I have two disk drives in my PC, each on a separate controller.
I always thought it was best to place the page file on a drive other
than the one used for the operating system and user files.



The thing that most slows down use of the page file is moving the drive
heads to and from it. Putting the page file on a second partition on your
only (or main) drive puts it far from the other frequently-used data on the
drive, increases the time it takes to get to and from it, and negatively
impacts performance.

Putting the page file on another *physical* drive, on the other hand,
normally increases performance. A good rule of thumb is that the page file
should be on the most-used partition of the least-used physical drive.


However,
I recently read somewhere that MS recommends putting at least a small
page file on the boot drive.



That's correct. If you have two physical drives, put most of it on the
second, but a small one on the drive with Windows.



However, note that most people these days have enough RAM so that page file
is minimal. If you fall into that category (for most people, 512MB or more)
it hardly makes any difference where the page file is located.
 
And while it is technically correct to move your paging file to a second
physical hard disk, don't expect the kind of performance improvement
that you'll actually notice. For most of us it makes no real difference.

You need a small page file on the system drive to capture crash dumps.
It's explained pretty well here:

"How to configure paging files for optimization and recovery in Windows XP"
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314482/en-us
 
Thanks guys.


Ted Zieglar said:
And while it is technically correct to move your paging file to a second
physical hard disk, don't expect the kind of performance improvement that
you'll actually notice. For most of us it makes no real difference.

You need a small page file on the system drive to capture crash dumps.
It's explained pretty well here:

"How to configure paging files for optimization and recovery in Windows
XP"
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314482/en-us
 
What size should the smaller paging file be?

Ted Zieglar said:
And while it is technically correct to move your paging file to a second
physical hard disk, don't expect the kind of performance improvement that
you'll actually notice. For most of us it makes no real difference.

You need a small page file on the system drive to capture crash dumps.
It's explained pretty well here:

"How to configure paging files for optimization and recovery in Windows
XP"
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314482/en-us
 
Ted said:
And while it is technically correct to move your paging file to a
second physical hard disk, don't expect the kind of performance
improvement that you'll actually notice. For most of us it makes no real
difference.


Yes, as I said (quoted below), "However, note that most people these days
have enough RAM so that page file is minimal. If you fall into that category
(for most people, 512MB or more) it hardly makes any difference where the
page file is located."
 
Depends on how much of a crash dump you want to capture. A minidump --
one minidump -- needs 2MB so that's the minimum. For a full memory dump
you would reserve an amount equal to the amount of RAM you have. The
Microsoft knowledge base explains it rather well.

But again, this is in the realm of technicality.
 
Back
Top